Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World gaming center


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   10:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

World gaming center
Delete I don't think this meets Notability (web) and is nothing more than an advert for 2 month old site. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 *  Delete'   i think it is  advertising  for their site  and it  doesnt meet wiki standards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.161.174.98 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 24 August 2006.
 * Do Not Delete  I think it is an important aspect of the gaming comumunity! When a recent major player (I will be nice and not mention) decided to close it doors to very abruptly, it left a lot of people in the blue.  For gamers around, it is nice to know the history, and how this site evolved to meet needs.  Please be more specific in why you oblect.  I notice in a lot of peoples histories they object to a lot of things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.71 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 24 August 2006. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_Gaming_Zone this info is already accepted. It list histories and games provided —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Use2b2t2 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 24 August 2006. (goodessofgates@hotmail.com) Note that User:Use2b2t2 inserted the comment in the middle of 64.12.116.71 here.
 * Keep Instead of asking for deletion so rashly, you should have proposed that the article be "cleaned up" first. Please explicitly state what parts of the article you deem inappropriate and how the article may be improved to comply with the policies. Most of all, do not simply say "it does not comply with the policies", but elucidate that statement properly, e.g. by listing the parts that are disagreeable to you. The article relates the history of WGC and its features and is not supposed to be an advertisement but an informative article, and I am convicned that it can be properly "cleaned up" to comply with the policies. Smaug1753 18:38, 23 August 2006 (GMT)
 * The nomination is for the whole article, not parts of it. If you wish to make a case for keeping the article, please cite sources to demonstrate that the aforementioned criteria are satisfied.  You have not cited a single source here or anywhere in the article. Uncle G 18:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article does indeed need cleaning. But after I reviewed the article I did not feel that it met the criteria and that cleaning it would not really help. Please look at the link I provided above and see if you can find anything that would fit under "Criteria for web content". While I still think the article is an advert, I will say that it is generally better written than most I have seen and stays away from most of the over-the-top comments. By the way this was not a rash decision. I read the whole article, looked at the external links and did try to find some evidence that it could meet the criteria. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep by all means I noticed that some entries in favour of the article were deleted and want to have them restored. Moreover, I don't deem it appropriate that this discussion is "protected" and thus prevents the public from making its opinions known. I do not altogether approve of this whole conduct and the fuss that is made about this article - some people here seem to be bent on having this article deleted as though it was something terrible that could not possibly be kept, yet it is merely an article giving detailed information about an online gaming site that takes a different approach to providing services than other gaming sites, which, in my opinion, is very noteable indeed. Wikipedia has more information about a wide range of topics than other encyclopedias, and this renders it more attractive; I personally don't think it's important if the article is "noteable" or not according to the abovementioned policy (indeed if you were serious about complying with that very policy, a lot of articles on Wikipedia would have to be deleted) - it is only important whether information is available or not, and WGC exists and information ought to be available (its mere existence, I believe, makes it noteable - also think of the different and noteworthy approach to organisation / providing services that WGC has in comparison with other gaming sites). The article ought to remain, deleting it or other articles of the kind makes Wikipedia lose information worth keeping and people will wonder why Wikipedia has so little information about certain topics. Smaug1753 21:35, 25 August 2006 (GMT)
 * The preceding text was moved from the bottom as this user's second vote. RandyWang ( chat/patch ) 22:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reliable sources. WilyD 17:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom ST47 18:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  per nom. Dionyseus 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the article, delete the redirect to the article, and delete Brownware LLC, whose only "notable" venture is the site mentioned in the article. Completely non-notable, and an advertisement (also note the ad section added to Microsoft Ants. -- Kicking222 02:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * '''Keep the article-It is not an advertisment, simply an article to inform others about the history of the company
 * delete per all above--Peephole 20:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising for another non-notable web board. --Xrblsnggt 02:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Big long article about something that just doesn't seem notable. Perhaps later? Userify on request, but delete ++Lar: t/c 06:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising (for now) per Lar. RandyWang ( chat/patch ) 22:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.